 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
King v. State6/27/2003
After a jury trial, Jacob King was found guilty of first degree vehicular homicide, reckless driving, serious injury by vehicle, and racing. His friend and co-defendant, Michael Massey, was found guilty of first degree vehicular homicide, reckless driving, serious injury by vehicle, racing, and driving under the influence of marijuana to the extent he was a less safe driver. The jury found Massey not guilty of possession of marijuana. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the verdicts. In Case No. A03A0422, King appeals from the judgments of conviction entered against him. In Case No. A03A0423, Massey appeals from the judgments of conviction entered against him.
Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that King and Massey were each driving their own pickup trucks on Barrett Parkway in Cobb County at 11 p.m. They were driving side by side, passing each other, weaving in and out of traffic, and speeding.
King entered a curve in the roadway, with Massey driving even with or just behind him. King lost control of his truck, struck a tree, and the truck reentered the roadway in the path of oncoming traffic. Edward Holcombe saw King's truck coming toward his car in a spinning motion. The ensuing collision left Holcombe's daughter dead and Holcombe injured. Massey's truck did not make contact with either of the vehicles.
Case No. A03A0422
1. King's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for serious injury by vehicle is without merit. Although there was no medical testimony as to Holcombe's injuries, Holcombe testified that after the collision he was trapped and had to be cut out of the car, that he suffered a concussion and had to be transported by ambulance to the hospital, that he had to get stitches in his head, that he injured his hand and wore a brace on it for several weeks, that he had to have knee surgery to repair torn cartilage, and that his wrist and thumb still did not function properly more than two years after the collision. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict of guilty, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found King guilty of causing serious injury by vehicle.
2. King contends the trial court gave an incomplete jury instruction on the crime of speeding. Specifically, he states that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to charge the jury with OCGA § 40-6-181 (b), which sets forth the maximum speed limits for certain types of locations.
The trial court included in its charge an instruction on OCGA § 40- 6-180, which sets out the prohibition against driving too fast for conditions. As part of that instruction, the court listed several examples, such as traveling at an unreasonable or imprudent speed when approaching and going around a curve. The court also charged the jury that no one is to exceed the maximum posted speed limits.
Citing Bilbrey v. State, King argues that these instructions were not sufficient to instruct the jury as to what specific act was unlawful. He urges that when OCGA § 40-6-180 is charged to the jury, so should OCGA § 40-6-181 (b), which specifies the maximum speed limits for particular types of areas. King's argument presents no basis for reversal in this case.
King was charged with reckless driving by repeatedly changing lanes and exceeding the speed limit, not with driving at an unreasonable rate of speed given then-existing conditions. Although it is undisputed that the collision occurred just after King's truck entered a curve, the evidence overwhelmingly involved King's and Massey's acts of exce
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|